LDS, Christians, and Politics

[Eagledad]

>>It is fascinatin' that some neo-conservatives' response to criticizin' the administration over their tactical and strategic choices is the same as complainin' about the weather. Gotta admit, that attitude of blind followership really scares me. And I'm a lifelong Republican who used to agree with Rooster

[Beavah]

Speaking of accountablility, you posted the administration hadn't prosecuted a single terrorist, in 8 years! Yet I gave you a list of several.

 

Nah, yeh gave a list of cases. Now, which ones were a successful prosecution, as opposed to cases like Lindh's that were bungled so badly that 80-90% of the substantive charges were thrown out, and they settled for weak plea bargains?

 

I didn't go through your whole list, but I think the only genuine trial and conviction in the lot was Reid, eh? And he stood up in open court and admitted to bein' a terrorist at war with da U.S., so yeh can hardly credit that conviction to the DOJ, eh?

 

Sending too few troops? We wiped out Saddam's Army in the blink of an eye!

 

Yah, and then the enemy wiped out Iraq's oil and electrical infrastructure which was part of our mission to preserve. So much so that oil production I don't think has yet recovered from pre-war levels.

 

This stuff gets taught at Army War College, eh? It's known science. So many boots on da ground for X sized population, or yeh get this level of insurgency. If SecDef and Bush had listened to the people who knew what they were talkin' about... but nah. They had "faith."

 

Beavah

 

[Beavah]

Yah, Eagledad.

 

I was respondin' to an argument, eh? It's a common enough argument bein' made a bunch of different places, comparin' critiquing government actions to the weather. "Bush wasn't responsible for a Hurricane", etc. Several folks on this thread parroted that argument. I even made a somewhat different version of it in the "I wish" thread, eh?

 

I dislike that argument sometimes, in part because it's often used fallaciously just to belittle the points being made by others. Same with callin' someone else's argument an uninformed product of da Media (of one flavor or another). If we're honest, we get almost all of our information through some form of media.

 

I was not addressin' any person, by name or otherwise. I was addressin' an argument being made by many people, most not on these forums, eh?.

 

I'm sorry if it came across differently, and I apologize profusely for any unintended slight.

 

I assure yeh, though, if I want to address a particular person, I'll use their name, and I'll try to do it in private. Much like a proper SM conference, as you say. Otherwise, I'm just debatin' the idea, and I sorta figure any of us who put our ideas out are askin' or at least open to comment and critique, eh?

 

Beavah

 

[Eagledad]

Happy Holidays All

 

My bad Beavah, you meant Incompetence, bumbling idiocy, Near total disregard, No strategic sense whatsoever, dodge the last war and fail History class, neo-con chicken hawks, current line of clowns, blind followership in the good way.

 

Folks say our society has become too polarized. Maybe it's just a communication problem.

 

Have a great scouting day all.

 

Barry

 

[Beavah]

My bad Beavah, you meant Incompetence, bumbling idiocy, Near total disregard, No strategic sense whatsoever, dodge the last war and fail History class, neo-con chicken hawks, current line of clowns, blind followership in the good way.

 

Yah, those were comments about da government, eh?

 

I sorta figure that criticizin' the government, even in very pointed terms, is always fair game . One of those First Amendment, American-type things. Especially seein' as how I'm a fairly conservative, Republican-type voter who helped get 'em elected.

 

I'll stand by "incompetence" and "bumbling". "No strategic sense" and "total disregard" too, eh? But "current line of clowns" was John-in-KC's. I was just echoin'.

 

I'm happy to listen to an argument that they ain't incompetent, too. Im just hopin' it's better than "you must be listening to the Mainstream Media".

 

Beavah

 

[BrentAllen]

Beavah,

I'm not sure I agree with either your revisionist history, or view of reality. Lindh got 20 years. http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/10/04/lindh.statement/ I don't think you bungle a case and send the defendant to the big house for 20.

 

As for the others, let me give you a little help.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/07/virginia.jihad/

 

http://www.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pressrel03/battle112403.htm

 

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2004/February/04_crm_079.htm

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,87264,00.html

 

http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=22979

 

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/04/14/Ujaama.plea/

 

Do you still claim the DOJ has not made a single prosecution in over 8 years?? Care to revise your remarks?

 

 

[Gold Winger]

" But lots of time spent scannin' my phonecalls for key words."

 

They've been doing that for 30 or more years, they just haven't told the public about it.

 

"Victory?"

 

Yes, victory. We soundly defeated Sadaam's army. We're now caught up in the administrative aftermath of that victory, mostly because we're "nice guys."

[Beavah]

Yah, BA, thanks for da links, eh?

 

Not a single successful prosecution listed.

 

Some guilty pleas by oddballs and fanatics (most of whom were less frightnin' and less well equipped than an average urban gang), but not one successful trial in the list you provided. And some of 'em are goin' to be out of jail before we're out of Iraq.

 

BTW, who is Kruger? Our small-town newspaper doesn't carry too many talkin' head commentators, and I never watch TV news. Is he one of them? My "mainstream media" for international stuff is usually The Economist.

 

Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Eagledad]

>>I sorta figure that criticizin' the government, even in very pointed terms, is always fair game . One of those First Amendment, American-type things. Especially seein' as how I'm a fairly conservative, Republican-type voter who helped get 'em elected.

[BrentAllen]

Yeah, only in Beavah's imaginary world would he rather see the terrorist defendants plead not guilty, go to court, cost the taxpayers millions of dollars, and possibly get off on a technicality than see them plead guilty and to to prison. Yeah, that's the ticket! I wish you were running for Prez, so I could vote for you!

 

Who's Krugman?? Give me a break...

[John-in-KC]

Barry,

 

I'm going to put on my old soldier hat for a moment: The "surge" is +/- 2% the number of troops General Eric Shinseki, then Chief of Staff of the Army, recommended as the full force in being for the "day after the war."

 

Of course, we know that General Shinseki was told to pound sand by Secretary Rumsfeld. We also know that he was snubbed by the Secretary at his retirement review... by the Secretary staying inside the Building.

 

The surge proved General Shinseki right. I cannot say more.

[Beavah]

Yeah, only in Beavah's imaginary world would he rather see the terrorist defendants plead not guilty, go to court, cost the taxpayers millions of dollars, and possibly get off on a technicality than see them plead guilty and to to prison.

 

Yah, da point was that every time a terrorist suspect has pled "not guilty" in the last 8 years, the trial has been bungled by da DOJ and they have gotten off, eh? And personally, I'm a bit embarrassed by some of their plea deals. Young, dangerous terrorists out in 7? And every bizarre effort to proceed through extra-judicial methods has been overturned.

 

Not a legal record anybody should be proud of.

 

Who's Krugman?? Give me a break...

 

Googled him. A NYTimes columnist? Sorry, I don't subscribe. Never read him. Only guy at da NYTimes I've ever read is Friedman, who is fairly knowledgeable on da mideast and not very knowledgeable on other things

 

Beavah

 

[Beavah]

Yah, Eagledad, again...

 

I apologize if anything I said was taken to be personally offensive by anybody here. That was not my intent.

 

But I do reserve da right to be critical of my government and the politicians who are (or wish to be) runnin' it. My effort was perhaps an impassioned response to funscout's assertion that Bill Clinton was responsible for 9/11. I never voted for Clinton and supported his impeachment, but I believe in' bein' at least as critical of my own guys as I am of da other side.

 

For my part, I can honestly say I've expressed my views in private letters to our "leaders" long before expressin' them in public, and gave 'em lots of benefits of the doubt.

 

I wonder if everybody can say da same about the folks they criticize in public, eh?

 

Beavah(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[packsaddle]

I'm pinching myself now. First, I take some time off to play Santa for some underprivileged kids - and I come back to a whole new thread.

Second, I find myself agreeing with Beavah! For the second time! On two different topics! Holy Toledo!

 

One thing I think Beavah and I share in these threads is a fairly thick skin. I can't speak for him but I know I sometimes forget how thin it is for some others but really, I do follow the golden rule. I expect people to give it back just same as I dish it out. The thing is, as long as this doesn't involve personal attacks but rather attacks on ideas, I don't see the problem.

If someone thinks one of my ideas is the dumbest thing ever to walk the planet, that's great. I'd kind of like to understand where I went wrong though, so I might ask for the reasoning or evidence. Fair enough? Thick skin.

The problem occurs when we hold our ideas so close as to be part of ourselves. Then we perceive the attacks to be on both. Thin skin.

Fortunately I can still run pretty fast so on those occasions where Beavah and I disagree, I'm fairly certain I can outrun him if he comes after me. Yeah, it's a sad little fantasy...but it's mine.

 

But beyond that, I don't see that Beavah has written anything he needs to apologize for. (except maybe for reading that liberal press rag, The Economist;))

If you think he's wrong, then present your counter arguments and evidence. Whining about hurt feelings might get some comforting words but it doesn't advance the arguments for either side.

[funscout]

Bevah,

 

I didn't mean Clinton was responsible for 911. Only Bin Laden and his gang were. I simply pointed out that Clinton was offered Bin Laden, but didn't take him. 911 wouldn't have happened if he had taken Bin Laden, but that doesn't make Clinton responsible for it. Saying someone could have prevented something doesn't mean that he/she caused it to happen. Yes, they would feel guilt over not preventing it, but they didn't cause it. Does that make sense?

 

Now, what do you think the outcry would have been if Bush had been president when Bin Laden was offered, and turned down? People are so quick to criticize him for minute problems, so can you imagine if he had been in Clinton's shoes? I don't understand why Clinton gets, "It's okay, Bill, it was a simple mistake," while we all know Bush would have been figuratively crucified by the media.

 

I, too criticize Republicans when I disagree with their policies. I feel Bush has been too soft on illegal immigration. He also didn't cut spending like a good Conservative should have done.

 

I don't think Beavah needs to apologize for stating his views. I disagree with them, but that's no reason to need an apology. Of course, I would prefer that everyone debated in a civilized manner, but this is politics, so a civil debate is kind of an oxymoron.